[2025:RJ-JP:51975] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7848/2022 Jagmohan Sharma Son Of Shri Kamla Prasad Sharma, Resident Of 40 Saraswati Apartment, Near Mahesh Nagar Police Station, Shri Gopal Nagar, Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Rajnarayan Bhardwaj Son Of Shri Roop Narayan Bhardwaj, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of 112, Avadhpuri Second , 80Ft. Road, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhaskar Sharma, Adv. With Mr. Chander Mohan Sharma, Adv. Mr. VD Agnihotri, Adv. For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Assistant to GA Mr. Rajiv Dwivedi, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 19/12/2025 1. By way of this instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Session Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Criminal Revision No.39/2022 (CIS No.381/2022) whereby the learned Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 13.04.2022, passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Criminal Case No.5790/2018 whereby application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. [2025:RJ-JP:51975] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-7848/2022] read with Section 21 of Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 filed on behalf of the petitioner to summon the complainant of this case for further cross-examination was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the complainant for further cross- examination in a highly mechanical and arbitrary manner, without appreciating the factual matrix and the peculiar circumstances of the case. 3. It is contended that the matter was amicably settled between the parties before the Lok Adalat, wherein a lawful compromise was arrived at. In pursuance of the said compromise, the petitioner has already paid a substantial portion of the settled amount to the complainant. However, due to the unprecedented circumstances arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner could not adhere to the exact timeline for payment of certain instalments as stipulated in the compromise. 4. Learned counsel further submits that when the petitioner subsequently approached the complainant with the remaining amount and expressed his readiness and willingness to honour the compromise in its entirety, the complainant refused to accept the same. Not only did the complainant decline to receive the balance amount, but he also failed to return the amount already received by him under the compromise. In order to demonstrate his bona fides and continued commitment to the settlement, the petitioner deposited the demand draft before the learned Trial Court. [2025:RJ-JP:51975] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-7848/2022] 5. It is further argued that once the dispute stood settled before the Lok Adalat, compelling the petitioner to proceed with the cross-examination of the complainant was contrary to the very spirit and object of the compromise. The petitioner was thus placed in a difficult and prejudicial position and was left with no real option but to conduct the cross-examination in haste. As a result, the petitioner could not effectively put the true and relevant facts on record or confront the complainant on material aspects arising out of the compromise. 6. In these facts and circumstances, learned counsel submits that recalling the complainant for further cross-examination is essential for a just, fair, and proper adjudication of the case, and denial of such opportunity would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner and result in miscarriage of justice. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. He contended that ample and sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant. It is further submitted that a perusal of the record clearly demonstrates that the complainant was cross-examined at length and, therefore, no case for recalling the complainant is made out. He further submits that the application seeking further cross-examination is nothing but an attempt to delay the proceedings and same has been dismissed rightly by the trial Court. 8. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. [2025:RJ-JP:51975] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-7848/2022] 9. From perusal of the impugned order of the trial court, it is evident that a compromise deed was executed between the petitioner and the complainant/respondent on 06.01.2020 before the District Legal Service Authority and according to the said compromise-deed, the petitioner was to pay disputed cheque amount in seven instalments commencing from 20.01.2020 to 20.07.2020. In compliance of the compromise, the petitioner deposited Rs.30,000/- on 20.01.2020, Rs.25,000/- on 20.02.2020 and thereafter Rs.30,000/- on 10.11.2021. Only three instalments were deposited by the petitioner and third one was deposited on 10.11.2021 i.e., after due date. However, an explanation was given by the petitioner that due to COVID-19 pandemic, he could not adhere to the exact timeline for payment of certain instalments as stipulated in the compromise. In this regard, it was observed by the learned Trial Court that after lock-down, when the Courts again started functioning regularly, the petitioner did not deposit the due amount. The order impugned reflects listing of the case on nine times after 09.03.2021 and the petitioner deposited the thirst instalment on 10.11.2021. The petitioner was having knowledge of the compromise and the matter was listed for payment of disputed cheque amount and for cross-examination. Cross-examination on behalf of the petitioner was completed on 15.12.2021 and thereafter, the matter was listed on 24.01.2022. 10. During the aforesaid period, no steps were taken by the petitioner to pay the disputed cheque amount and the matter was listed for petitioner’s cross-examination. Despite having knowledge about the compromise-deed, the petitioner completed [2025:RJ-JP:51975] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-7848/2022] the cross-examination of the complainant. The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case does not show that pressure was created upon the petitioner to complete the cross-examination. 11. The Trial Court observed that after completion of cross- examination, it has no power to recall its order or to quash the cross-examination. This Court is of the view that the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court while rejecting the application to recall the complainant for further cross-examination is just and proper. The revisional Court has also not committed any error in dismissing the revision. The orders passed by the Courts below do not suffer from any perversity and illegality and thus, require no interference. 12. Hence, the Criminal Misc. Petition being bereft of merits, stands dismissed. 13. Stay application and pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki /675